Slashdot Mirror
'DVD Jon' Acquitted On All Counts in DeCSS Case
Here's John Leyden's story at the Register about the ruling.
LarsBT links to this Reuters newsflash and points out that since Johansen's arrest, "Norway has introduced legislation similar to the European Unions directive on copyright [pdf], making it illegal to circumvent any copyright protection - making it highly unlikely that he would be found not guilty under these new rules."
An anonymous reader writes with some background (or do a search on Slashdot for DeCSS ;)): "Read the DVD-Jon lawsuit story here and here" and notes that "'the prosecution decided to charge Johansen with a data break-in, rather than handle the matter as a copyright case.' The court said that DeCSS could be used both legally and illegally and referred to similar cases outside the computing industry. The court said it was difficult to conclude on Johansen's intentions with DeCSS, but there was no conclusive evidence."
Hooray!
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
The judge realized that information wanted to be free!
Thank God this guys is norwegian and didn't drop by the USA.
I wonder what happened if he was american
Sklyarov anyone?
all in norweigian... http://www.digi.no/dtno.nsf/pub/md20030107114651_q iz_14357518
I could be wrong. I'm always wrong...
Yet, I still wonder if this conclusion can be used against DMCA itself.
The ruling came from the norwegian "Tingrett", which is one of the lower courts. Hence, an appeal will almost certainly be made before the two week deadline is up.
It ain't over till the fat geek burps...
The bastard never wrote DeCSS, he merely wrote a GUI. This is a sad day.
Even though Norway is not part of the EU, I'm sure people over here will pay attention and (hopefully) it will help sink that DMCA-like abomination the EC has been mulling over for a few years now for good.
It's happening. People are starting to pay attention. With most households owning a DVD player, things like "region code" are filtering down to the masses, and people are a lot more receptive when you attempt to explain how CSS, end-to-end encryption and the DMCA affect what they can (and are allowed) to do with digital media they payed for.
And most people do not like it one bit.
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
I'm quite certain the phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
Now HOLYWOOD will be wanting us to "license" DVD's from them for our own use. That way they can maintain ownership of the DVD itself.
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
The real showdown will be when Norway implements the EUCD directive. Then this verdict could be rather irrelevant as the new laws could make such actions illegal anyway.
"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
This simply shows that at least in Norway decrypting a DVD is not data theft. OTOH, since the prosecution did not try to charge him with copyright circumvention we still have no ruling on the matter.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
LarsBT links to this Reuters newsflash and points out that since Johansen's arrest, "Norway has introduced legislation similar to the European Unions directive on copyright [pdf], making it illegal to circumvent any copyright protection - making it highly unlikely that he would be found not guilty under these new rules."
Norway is not part of the EU, but still takes most new EU-laws and directives and implements them into their own law. The irony of them implementing the Infosoc-directive (Euro-DMCA) mentioned above is that they're almost the only ones doing it. So far, only Denmark (*sigh*) and Greece has implemented the directive.
This isn't really a victory. It should have never gone this far in the first place. Calling it a victory is like saying someone who got hit by a car and survived was lucky ... if they were really lucky, they wouldn't have been hit in the first place.
Double jeopardy only applies in criminal trials. In civil trials, the loosing side(s) can appeal.
Enjoy it while it lasts, Jon was found innocent because the laws in Norway haven't been updated to be in concert with the EUCD (Europe's DMCA), which Norway will have to be part of. Once the EUCD is implemented across Europe, his actions would be criminal and he would go to jail. FWIW, the American government is pushing hard for it to be implemented there. For more information on the EUCD, check out http://ukcdr.org/issues/eucd. For good examples of how the DMCA sucks, check out the EFF's unintended consequences list.
Peace,
Chuck
And somewhere, echoing through the mountains of Norway, the Hallilujia Chorus is heard...
Score one for the good guys. This counts as a big win for Linux users, as we now have a case to cite. While that might not mean much here in the United States, it is a shininhg example that not all circumvention software is intended for use in pirating.
It also marks a major slap in the face for the MPAA, who needs one at the moment. They've been throwing their weight around too much the last few years, and it's about time they got put in their place. Now, all we need is a similar precident here in the US, and our rights to do what we want (privately, of course) with things that we buy will be ever the slightest bit safer.
I happen to have the DeCSS code (and no, I won't send it along, so don't ask). I haven't compiled it yet. I kept it around in the event that my DVD ROM would go to hell (which it did), so that I could boot into Linux and simply watch my DVDs. I wasn't going to rip them, burn them and ship them off to my friends. I was just going to watch them. Now, I happened upon a DVD player for free, so I really don't need it at the moment. It's just nice to have around, just in case.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
since only two countries (Greece and Denmark) made the directive into a national law, it is no longer in effect.
If you had actually read the Register story you would have noticed that "It's best to see this as a delay -rather than a derailment - of the controversial measures"
The EUCD must still be implemented. Theoretically the member states who have not implemented this could be sued under the EU treaty (by the commission?) but since we are talking about all but two members this is not likely.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Norway is not a member of the EU. The other nordic nations, that is Sweden, Finland and Denmark, are. European Union
Norway is a member of Nato. Nato
This was a criminal case. JJ was charged for breaking criminal law, paragraph 145, second WhateverTheEnglishTermIs.
There is no such thing as 'double jeopardy' in Norway.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Nope, no, nei, wrong, error!
Norway does not have to implement any EU directives whatsoever. Why? Because they are not a member of the EU
The article refers to "Norwegian laws that protect what a consumer can do with his or her own property."
We need some laws like this in the United States.
Laws that say "I bought it, I own it, it's MINE."
More and more, corporations are attempting to retain control of their products after consumers have purchased them. This is not only unfair to consumers, it is profoundly contrary to the American tradition of property ownership.
(And, yes, I understand the distinction between "purchasing" and "licensing." I object to the imposition of legal fictions that assumes "licensing" in situations where the commonsense reality is that the transaction is a purchase).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Acutally, the manufacturer of the Xing DVD player could sue Jon for damages. They have, without dispute, lost A LOT of money after this incident. Not only was their CSS-keys retracted from the market, they also had to pay a fine to the DVD CCA. They are the real losers in this ordeal.
Since a lot of posts in this thread are about the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) I would like to give a brief summary:
... it shall submit proposals for amendments to this Directive."
The EUCD has been passed. This means that the member states must implement it in their national legislation. They should have done so by Dec 22 '02 but only Denmark and Greece made it. Status reports here. Norway's not a member of the EU.
The EUCD can be overturned in two ways:
1. In the European Court.
This means that somebody challenges the directive for being invalid under the EU treaty. It could be.
It's hard to get a case before the European Court, so this would probably need backing by one of the member states. This is being looked into, but it's not easy.
2. Through normal legislative process.
The EUCD article 12(1) states that "Not later than 22 December 2004" the Commission shall report on the application of the directive. Regarding article 6 (The bad one) "it shall examine in particular whether that Article confers a sufficient level of protection and whether acts which are permitted by law are being adversely affected by the use of effective technological measures [DRM]. Where necessary, in particular to ensure the functioning of the internal market
We definitely do intend to influence that report and have article 6 amended, but the entertainment industry is doing the same, so this isn't easy either.
On the other hand the directive was forged with very little public attention to article 6, so nearly all attention on the case would be in our favour.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
If a thief breaks into your home and steals your CD/DVD collection should it be the MPAA/RIAA that files the report with the police. After all it's the MPAA/RIAA property that you are just licensing. Should it not then be their responsibility to replace your media since you still license it.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
The article refers to "Norwegian laws that protect what a consumer can do with his or her own property."
We need some laws like this in the United States.
Actually they do exist, hence the need for DMCA to turn them back. About a decade ago, a publishing executive told me they had never prosecuted people who photocopy books because lawyers had adviced them that property rights in the US likely allowed you to do so, and even to sell those copies so long as you didn't profit. "the last thing we need is a legal ruling making it official and unambiguously legal".
He also mentioned that in most other countries this would not be the case, but that "the US has one of the strongest personal property laws out there".
As for that quote, it was something Jon uttered after having been seriously flamed for having stolen Fawkus code, which Fawkus later said he had not.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Now Norway.
Is Massachusetts next? This is scary.
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
AFAIK Norway is not a part of the EU, so they do not have to adjust their laws an accordance of the EU.
They might implement it (in this case, I don't see why they should), but they certainly don't have to by any treaty.
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
That's true in America as well. The Constitution specifically forbids ex post facto laws, meaning that you can't pass a law and then convict people of breaking it before it was enacted.
Even if Norway were in the EU, Jon couldn't go to jail -- EU law is purely civil, not criminal. So the most he'd be faced with is a whopping fine.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
I heard the verdict live on norwegian radio today. I havent read the statement yet, so the quotes might not be 100 percent accurate.
First two comments.
* The verdict can be appealed to "Lagmannsretten" (one step below Supreme Court) within two weeks. No statements yet in Norwegian media whether they will do that, but at least one legal expert "guessed" that they will not. The prosecutor (ØkoKrim - "Economical Chrime") will decide if they shall appeal, not MPAA!
* Norway have not yet implemented the European Unions directive on copyright, but they will probably do it soon.
Here is what I found interesting and amusing:
The law they used is mainly about "breaking in" og "gaining access" to "stuff" that is not yours and that is protected. The original law is very old, but was changed (about 20 years ago?) to include digital information.
Tha court mainly states that you cannot be convicted for breaking into something that is yours. (If you choose to break into your own car that is your prioblem, not the courts).
It also states that the methods used for breaking into something (it specifically addresses "reverse engineering"-techics") isnt unlawful in themselves. They are just unlawful if you are not entitled to the information the protection is protecting.
The next issue was that the keys themselves could be looked at as the information that was protected (not the content of the DVD). This is slightly more tricky, but firstly the judge said that the first key was not protected at all (this is clearly not breaking into anythin). Then she said that since the "real data" here is the movie, and that since he has the right to look at the movie, gaining access to the keys that protected this infomation could be not be regarding as unlawful.
The last point was whether the reason wasnt looking at the DVD, but to illegally copy DVDs. Several examples for "real life" was used here. It seems clear that you cannot the held accountable (in Norwegian law) if you sell/distribute goods with an legal appliance, even if it is used illegally. (If you sell an axe, you are not responsible if someone uses the axe for murder). There is however legal precedence stating if you know that the intent is clearly illegal, you can be hold accountable, even if the goods in themself is lega. The judge used an example from Supreme Court where a person was convicted for selling equipment for destilling alcohol. He was clearly aware that it was used for illegal purposed, but claimed that each part for legal to sell.
This means that if Johansen distributed/sold/developed deCSS when he knew that the main reason for this was to illegally copy DVDs, he could be convicted for that. Johansen claimed that his main reason was developing a Linux DVD player.
The judge referred several IRC-logs, where Johansen made statements like "Linux sucks", "I wish that all Linux fanatics would be shot" and "FreeBSD rulez" (and an e-mail where he states that Linux is a very good OS, but FreeBSD is better). (Several in the courtroom started to laugh at this time, and the judge had to tell them to be silent). She also mentioned that he didnt have Linux installed at at the time, and that the only thing he developed was a GUI for Windows. However, the court did not find it proved - beyond reasonable doubt - the Johansens main reason was to develop programs that could be used illegally. He terefore falls in the same category as thos selling/distributing goods that can both be used legally and illegally.
And as you all know: not guilty.
Actually they do exist, hence the need for DMCA to turn them back. About a decade ago, a publishing executive told me they had never prosecuted people who photocopy books because lawyers had adviced them that property rights in the US likely allowed you to do so, and even to sell those copies so long as you didn't profit.
Not very likely. Although whether one is profiting from copying does have some bearing on whether copying falls into the "fair use" exception to copyright, it is not the only thing considered. Copying entire books and selling them is almost certainly not fair use and thus illegal (if the book is copyrighted and you do not have permission of the copyright owner) even if you do not profit from it.
There could be a number of other reasons why the publisher doesn't sue--most likely, because someone making and selling a handful of copies doesn't dent the publisher's profits enough to make it worth the cost of sending lawyers after the person doing the copying. If some organization were making and selling thousands of unauthorized copies--even if they were doing it without profit--you can bet the legitimate publisher would go after them, and the publisher would win, too.
Also, keep in mind that unlike trademarks, copyrights can be selectively enforced without diluting the copyright--if they choose not to prosecute some copyright violations, it does not affect their copyright.
IANAIPLBIDWWTOARB. (I am not an intellectual property lawyer but I do work with them on a regular basis.)
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Call me weird, but I'll take the publisher's executive word over you comments, in the abscence of any evidence to the contrary....
You assume that the EUCD will become law... Although effected by business most European governments are democracies (unlike the US where only the super rich and big business run the country) and the same pressures do not work. I accept that Blair is too busy bending over for Bush to consider not doing as asked but Europe is much bigger than one country.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Yes, yup, ja, right, correct!
Sorry that I have to tell you this, but Norway's deal with EU through the EEC deal force Norway to implement a lot of EU directives - including the EUCD.
The Norwegian Department of Culture is expected to release a law proposal in february. If you want to do something about it, join Electronic Frontier Norway.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!